ArticleJournal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research2018
Evaluation of liver test abnormalities in a patient-centered medical home: do liver test patterns matter?
Article in Journal of investigative medicine : the official publication of the American Federation for Clinical Research, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- The Utility of Liver Biopsy in the Evaluation of Liver Disease and Abnormal Liver Function Tests.American journal of clinical pathology · 2021Article
- The utility of liver biopsy in 2020.Current opinion in gastroenterology · 2020Review
- Abnormal Liver Enzymes.Journal of general internal medicine · 2019Article
- When Do Clinicians Follow-up Abnormal Liver Tests in Primary Care?The American journal of the medical sciences · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Abnormal liver tests are extremely common in clinical practice, present with varying patterns and degrees of elevation, and can signal liver injury from a variety of causes. Responding to these abnormalities requires complex medical decision-making and merits investigation in primary care. This retrospective study investigates the association of patterns of liver test abnormality with follow-up in primary care. Using administrative data, this study includes patients with abnormal liver tests seen between 2007 and 2016 in a patient-centered medical home. Liver tests examined include serum bilirubin, aspartate aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and alkaline phosphatase. Patients entered the cohort on the first liver test elevation. The outcome examined was completion of repeat testing, and the proportions of patients without follow-up were compared by patterns of index abnormality. 9545 patients met the inclusion criteria. Of these, 6155 (64.5%) possessed one liver test abnormality and 3390 (35.5%) possessed multiple abnormalities on index testing. Overall 1119 (11.7%) patients did not have repeat testing performed during the study period. A greater proportion of patients with lone abnormalities lacked repeat testing compared with those patients with multiple abnormalities. Differences in repeat testing appeared when comparing clinical patterns of abnormality, with higher proportions of follow-up in patients with testing suggestive of cholestasis. Over 11% of patients with abnormal liver tests did not undergo repeat testing during the study period. Repeat testing occurred more often in patients with multiple abnormalities and in clinical patterns suggestive of cholestasis. This study highlights a potential opportunity to improve quality of care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.